JUDGMENT K. Sankaran, C.J. 1. Plaintiffs-decree holders have preferred this appeal against the lower court's order in respect of the restitution of the suit properties. As per the trial court's decree they were allowed to recover possession of the properties from the defendants. But the appeal against that decree was allowed by the High Court and plaintiffs' right to get possession of the properties was negatived. They were given only a decree for recovery of the amount found due to them, together with interest thereon. But in the meanwhile, the plaintiffs had executed the trial court's decree and had recovered possession of the properties. When the defendants applied for restitution, the plaintiffs raised certain objections and also claimed compensation for the improvements effected by them. The lower court upheld the claim for value of improvements but made the plaintiffs liable for the mesne profits for the period of their possession of the properties. The appeal is against the order to that effect. 2. The first point urged on behalf of the appellants is that they cannot be made liable for mesne profits until the date of payment of value of improvements. We are in agreement with the lower court's view that this contention is untenable. In view of the High Court's decree negativing plaintiffs' right to get possession of the properties, there can be no doubt that plaintiffs' possession was wrongful from its inception. The High Court decree takes effect even from the date of the trial court's decree. Since plaintiffs were in wrongful possession of the properties they are liable for the mesne profits until the date of surrender of possession. The improvements effected by them cannot affect their liability for mesne profits. They get compensation for improvements merely because these improvements are found to have been effected in good faith and because they are beneficial to the properties. The liability for mesne profits is not conditional on payment of the value of improvements. There is another aspect also to be considered in this connection. As per the final decree, plaintiffs get the amount due to them together with interest from the date of suit. In addition to such interest, they cannot appropriate to themselves the income of the properties over which they had no right. Thus in any view of the matter, the order of the lower court regarding the award of mesne profits calls for no interference. In addition to such interest, they cannot appropriate to themselves the income of the properties over which they had no right. Thus in any view of the matter, the order of the lower court regarding the award of mesne profits calls for no interference. 3. The next objection is about the method of valuing improvements. From the commission report, it is seen that the items of improvements consisted of some non-bearing trees and the raising of a bund. It is not shown how the Commissioner has erred in valuing these items or that a different method of valuation would have been more advantageous to the plaintiffs. We do not therefore think that there is any necessity or justification for ordering a revaluation of these items of improvements. 4. The last objection is that the location of 25 bearing coconut trees mentioned in the commission report should have been decided by the lower court, The age of these trees as mentioned in. the report shows that all these trees were in existence long before the date of plaintiffs getting delivery of the properties. They cannot claim these trees as their improvements. The yield of these trees had to be taken into account in fixing the amount of mesne profits. But it is seen that the Commissioner has assessed mesne profits after leaving out of account these 25 trees. This has only been to the advantage of the plaintiffs and they have no reason to complain. The defendants who were really prejudiced have not objected to the course adopted by the Commissioner. 5. In the result, this appeal fails and it is dismissed with costs.